| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415227 is a reply to message #415187] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 13:48   |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-07-18, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> According to Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>:
>>
>>> That's OK, if our population continues doubling every 40 years
>>
>> But it won't. The current world population is about 8 billion,
>> estimages say that in 2100 it'll still be under 11 billion.
>>
>> We certainly have issues but standing room only isn't one of them.
>
> I'm pretty sure you're right. At least I hope you are.
> But we're hearing so much about how slowing growth is a
> disaster for The Economy. There will be a lot of effort
> spent trying to keep that growth going. It won't be pretty -
> unless you're at the top where the decision makers are.
>
It’s a disaster for the hucksters whose livelihood depends on convincing
people to buy lots of stuff they don’t need at prices they can’t afford.
IMHO a little deflation is a good thing.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415228 is a reply to message #415214] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 13:48 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 13:13:53 -0700, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time global
>>>> >>>> warming will have killed us all off.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us
>>>> >>> all off. A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people
>>>> >> appear to be morons.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>>>>
>>>> On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
>>>
>>> This is going to be ugly.
>>>
>>>
>>> On my way to the gym I pass an office park. I large company just moved
>>> in an they are installing solar panels above the parking lots. The area
>>> is huge, maybe 200 cars can park under the panels. I haven't looked but
>>> I assume there will be charging stations under the panels.
>>>
>>> How cool is that? Some number of employees drive to work, get their car
>>> charged while they work and they're good to go.
>>>
>>> Today coming back from the gym an adult passes me on one of those
>>> battery powered scooters. No large battery in sight. I went the same
>>> way he was going for about 2 miles. I never did catch up with him.
>>> Batteries keep getting better.
>>>
>>
>> It makes a lot of sense to stick solar panels in otherwise unused places.
>> Putting them over the parking lot also provides shade, but remember the 20%
>> factor I quoted. Its not easy (currently, lacking practical
>> superconductors) to ship solar energy around to follow the sun and you
>> otherwise need some large-capacity storage. One way is to use pumped
>> storage, but I think people might object to this. It would be tough to
>> provide enough battery storage.
>>
>> My feeling is solar should be used on a large scale in places with lots of
>> sun and access to water to generate hydrogen for use as fuel. Arabia and
>> North Africa could be energy giants in the new economy.
>
> Also the US Southwest has open areas, but much of that is ranch land
> or Native American reservations.
> --
> Jim
>
The locals would probably be happy to let utilities build solar farms on
unused land, if the price is right.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415238 is a reply to message #415228] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 15:51 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 10:48:22 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 13:13:53 -0700, Peter Flass
>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time global
>>>> >>>>> warming will have killed us all off.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us
>>>> >>>> all off. A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people
>>>> >>> appear to be morons.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>>>> >
>>>> > On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
>>>>
>>>> This is going to be ugly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On my way to the gym I pass an office park. I large company just moved
>>>> in an they are installing solar panels above the parking lots. The area
>>>> is huge, maybe 200 cars can park under the panels. I haven't looked but
>>>> I assume there will be charging stations under the panels.
>>>>
>>>> How cool is that? Some number of employees drive to work, get their car
>>>> charged while they work and they're good to go.
>>>>
>>>> Today coming back from the gym an adult passes me on one of those
>>>> battery powered scooters. No large battery in sight. I went the same
>>>> way he was going for about 2 miles. I never did catch up with him.
>>>> Batteries keep getting better.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It makes a lot of sense to stick solar panels in otherwise unused places.
>>> Putting them over the parking lot also provides shade, but remember the 20%
>>> factor I quoted. It?s not easy (currently, lacking practical
>>> superconductors) to ship solar energy around to follow the sun and you
>>> otherwise need some large-capacity storage. One way is to use pumped
>>> storage, but I think people might object to this. It would be tough to
>>> provide enough battery storage.
>>>
>>> My feeling is solar should be used on a large scale in places with lots of
>>> sun and access to water to generate hydrogen for use as fuel. Arabia and
>>> North Africa could be energy giants in the new economy.
>>
>> Also the US Southwest has open areas, but much of that is ranch land
>> or Native American reservations.
>> --
>> Jim
>>
>
> The locals would probably be happy to let utilities build solar farms on
> unused land, if the price is right.
Undoubtedly... but there are areas where the atmoic bombs were tested
out there. Best to avoid those.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415240 is a reply to message #415224] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 15:52 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 10:48:18 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2022-07-18, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
>>>> >> global warming will have killed us all off.
>>>> >
>>>> > Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us all off.
>>>> > A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>>
>>>> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people appear
>>>> to be morons.
>>>
>>> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock, but maybe it will be enough to
>>> to keep us going until fusion comes on line. Its no longer 30 years away,
>>> now theyre talking about the next decade. One sure sign is that big
>>> investors are starting to put money in.
>>
>> Don't worry about it, population growth will offset any conservation
>> efforts, new supply, etc.
>>
>
> A lot of things will offset. We used to have this thing called paper
> currency that took a little energy to make the paper and print, and then
> would stay in use for quite a while with no further energy expenditure. Now
> we have this stupid thing called bitcoin that apparently requires a lot
> of energy each time it is transferred. Oh well, it lets people pay for p*rn
> anonymously, so it must be better.
Its just fiat money, no real value.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415255 is a reply to message #415238] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 17:29 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 10:48:22 -0700, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The locals would probably be happy to let utilities build solar farms on
>> unused land, if the price is right.
>
> Undoubtedly... but there are areas where the atmoic bombs were tested
> out there. Best to avoid those.
Why? Perfect place for solar panels. It's not like the electricity they
produce would be radioactive. Even then, the levels of radiation on the
surface are minimal. Not to mention that the amount of land in the
test areas is a trivial fraction of the total.
I'm not sure you're visualizing just how big the southwestern united states
are, and how much land it encompasses.
In any case, panels on farmland works for some crops, panels over
irrigation canals is brilliant - achieve two goals with one panel, so
to speak (reduced evaporation and KwH).
There is plenty of empty desert. The grazing lands in the northern
tier would support panels just fine (assuming the transmission
infrastructure exists in all cases).
The entire western side of the San Joaquin valley (thousands of
square miles) is ripe for solar panels, and useless for much
else.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415261 is a reply to message #415255] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 19:17 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 21:29:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 10:48:22 -0700, Peter Flass
>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The locals would probably be happy to let utilities build solar farms on
>>> unused land, if the price is right.
>>
>> Undoubtedly... but there are areas where the atmoic bombs were tested
>> out there. Best to avoid those.
>
> Why? Perfect place for solar panels. It's not like the electricity they
> produce would be radioactive. Even then, the levels of radiation on the
> surface are minimal. Not to mention that the amount of land in the
> test areas is a trivial fraction of the total.
Monument Valley. a movie was made out there.
> I'm not sure you're visualizing just how big the southwestern united states
> are, and how much land it encompasses.
I've been to west Ttexas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Lots of places down
wind of Yucca Flats. Occasionally Vegas. Although that was downplayed
in the 1950s.
> In any case, panels on farmland works for some crops, panels over
> irrigation canals is brilliant - achieve two goals with one panel, so
> to speak (reduced evaporation and KwH).
True.
> There is plenty of empty desert. The grazing lands in the northern
> tier would support panels just fine (assuming the transmission
> infrastructure exists in all cases).
>
> The entire western side of the San Joaquin valley (thousands of
> square miles) is ripe for solar panels, and useless for much
> else.
I didn't see much grazing land along route 66 in the 1950s. I haven't
been in the northern areas of those states. Going back to California
on a MATS flight about 1968, I had been home on leave, we flew back at
125 mph... on a C-123 goony bird. An aircraft that really does flap
its wings on take off.
Central Texas, to Colorado River and the big dam out there, then
northwest. While I did sleep part of the way, I didn't see much
grazing. I did see some circular irrigation for crops though.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415265 is a reply to message #415255] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 20:09 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:
> In any case, panels on farmland works for some crops, panels over
> irrigation canals is brilliant - achieve two goals with one panel, so
> to speak (reduced evaporation and KwH).
I've seen proposals for panels over semi-arid areas spaced out enough
that there's enough sun for crops while limitin the evaporation.
Putting them over canals turns out not to work because of the wiring.
You need a block of cells for the wiring to work, not something 10 feet
wide and 100 miles long.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415277 is a reply to message #415265] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 21:10 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:
>> In any case, panels on farmland works for some crops, panels over
>> irrigation canals is brilliant - achieve two goals with one panel, so
>> to speak (reduced evaporation and KwH).
>
> I've seen proposals for panels over semi-arid areas spaced out enough
> that there's enough sun for crops while limitin the evaporation.
>
> Putting them over canals turns out not to work because of the wiring.
> You need a block of cells for the wiring to work, not something 10 feet
> wide and 100 miles long.
>
We’ll have to see. There’s a proposal now to put cells over the CAP canal
in Phoenix.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415345 is a reply to message #415126] |
Wed, 20 July 2022 17:40 |
|
|
Originally posted by: maus
On 2022-07-20, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 18:17:49 -0500, D.J. wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 21:29:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Undoubtedly... but there are areas where the atmoic bombs were tested
>>>> out there. Best to avoid those.
>>>
>>> Why? Perfect place for solar panels. It's not like the electricity they
>>> produce would be radioactive. Even then, the levels of radiation on the
>>> surface are minimal. Not to mention that the amount of land in the
>>> test areas is a trivial fraction of the total.
>
> At least they let visit you the Trinity test site as a tourist attraction
> since decades. I doubt they would if there was any danger.
>
>> Monument Valley. a movie was made out there.
>
> Didn't that kill John Wayne?
As well as his nicotine addiction. Looking at him in "The Quiet Man", he
could hardly get through a scene without lighting a cigarette. John,
AFAIK, was not as near the explosions as some of the enlisted men, and I
think that explosion was during the filming of `gengis khan' somewhere
north of las vegas, Maureen O'Hara lasted better.
--
greymausg@mail.com
"Are you sure that you can live on your investments after retirement?
If not, send us all your money."
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415351 is a reply to message #415156] |
Wed, 20 July 2022 18:46 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:16:33 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
>>>> global warming will have killed us all off.
>>>
>>> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us all off.
>>> A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>
>> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people appear
>> to be morons.
>>
>
> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock, but maybe it will be enough to
> to keep us going until fusion comes on line. It’s no longer 30 years away,
> now they’re talking about the next decade. One sure sign is that big
> investors are starting to put money in.
The flim-flam artists are talking about "the next decade", the people
who actually have a working system in which fusion occurs are still
saying around the turn of the century.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415352 is a reply to message #415168] |
Wed, 20 July 2022 18:52 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:24:05 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time global
>>>> >>>> warming will have killed us all off.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us
>>>> >>> all off. A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people
>>>> >> appear to be morons.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>>>>
>>>> On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
>>>
>>> This is going to be ugly.
>>>
>>>
>>> On my way to the gym I pass an office park. I large company just moved
>>> in an they are installing solar panels above the parking lots. The area
>>> is huge, maybe 200 cars can park under the panels. I haven't looked but
>>> I assume there will be charging stations under the panels.
>>>
>>> How cool is that? Some number of employees drive to work, get their car
>>> charged while they work and they're good to go.
>>>
>>> Today coming back from the gym an adult passes me on one of those
>>> battery powered scooters. No large battery in sight. I went the same
>>> way he was going for about 2 miles. I never did catch up with him.
>>> Batteries keep getting better.
>>>
>>
>> It makes a lot of sense to stick solar panels in otherwise unused places.
>> Putting them over the parking lot also provides shade, but remember the 20%
>> factor I quoted. It’s not easy (currently, lacking practical
>> superconductors) to ship solar energy around to follow the sun and you
>> otherwise need some large-capacity storage. One way is to use pumped
>> storage, but I think people might object to this. It would be tough to
>> provide enough battery storage.
>
> This is solar panels over a parking lot.
> Finding the battery storage isn't going to be a problem.
> At least on weekdays.
>
>> My feeling is solar should be used on a large scale in places with lots of
>> sun and access to water to generate hydrogen for use as fuel. Arabia and
>> North Africa could be energy giants in the new economy.
>
> I remember in HS being taught about the problems encountered storing H2.
> You need to store it under high pressure and it turns the metal of the
> container brittle and it leaks. I know it can be stored as hydrides but I don't
> think storage is a solved problem.
You can (if you live in the right locale) go down to the Honda or
Toyota dealer and drive home on hydrogen power. I have not heard of
any disasters associated with either. The "storage problem" appears
to be sufficiently solved for practical use.
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415357 is a reply to message #415352] |
Wed, 20 July 2022 20:19 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
According to J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>:
> You can (if you live in the right locale) go down to the Honda or
> Toyota dealer and drive home on hydrogen power.
Really? I know that Toyota, Honda, and Hyndai putatively have H2 cars
for sale in California but good luck finding one, or paying for it if
you can find one. The only real vehicles I know of are trials of
trucks and trains and maybe a few commercial fleets.
> I have not heard of
> any disasters associated with either. The "storage problem" appears
> to be sufficiently solved for practical use.
What hasn't been solved is the generation problem. Most H2 is "grey",
made from methane and emitting vast amounts of carbon, or "blue" which
purports to capture the carbon but is BS. The amount of "green" H2
created by solar cells and hydrolysis is tiny, and I see no evidence
that we have any way to ship it to where you might want to use it.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415368 is a reply to message #415126] |
Wed, 20 July 2022 21:54 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 16:30:27 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach
<ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 18:17:49 -0500, D.J. wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 21:29:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Undoubtedly... but there are areas where the atmoic bombs were tested
>>>> out there. Best to avoid those.
>>>
>>> Why? Perfect place for solar panels. It's not like the electricity they
>>> produce would be radioactive. Even then, the levels of radiation on the
>>> surface are minimal. Not to mention that the amount of land in the
>>> test areas is a trivial fraction of the total.
>
> At least they let visit you the Trinity test site as a tourist attraction
> since decades. I doubt they would if there was any danger.
>
>> Monument Valley. a movie was made out there.
>
> Didn't that kill John Wayne?
A larger number than typical of the people in that movie died of
various forms of cancer. The dirt was even broughgt back to the studio
to film some scenes.
The Atomic Energy folks told the studio it was harmless.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415384 is a reply to message #415357] |
Thu, 21 July 2022 09:30 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
> According to J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>:
>> You can (if you live in the right locale) go down to the Honda or
>> Toyota dealer and drive home on hydrogen power.
>
> Really? I know that Toyota, Honda, and Hyndai putatively have H2 cars
> for sale in California but good luck finding one, or paying for it if
> you can find one. The only real vehicles I know of are trials of
> trucks and trains and maybe a few commercial fleets.
>
>> I have not heard of
>> any disasters associated with either. The "storage problem" appears
>> to be sufficiently solved for practical use.
>
> What hasn't been solved is the generation problem. Most H2 is "grey",
> made from methane and emitting vast amounts of carbon, or "blue" which
> purports to capture the carbon but is BS. The amount of "green" H2
> created by solar cells and hydrolysis is tiny, and I see no evidence
> that we have any way to ship it to where you might want to use it.
You haven't even bothered to look for the evidence.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-pipelines
Not to mention all the work being done at Airbus.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415385 is a reply to message #415368] |
Thu, 21 July 2022 09:35 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 16:30:27 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach
> <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 18:17:49 -0500, D.J. wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 21:29:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >Undoubtedly... but there are areas where the atmoic bombs were tested
>>>> >out there. Best to avoid those.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Perfect place for solar panels. It's not like the electricity they
>>>> produce would be radioactive. Even then, the levels of radiation on the
>>>> surface are minimal. Not to mention that the amount of land in the
>>>> test areas is a trivial fraction of the total.
>>
>> At least they let visit you the Trinity test site as a tourist attraction
>> since decades. I doubt they would if there was any danger.
>>
>>> Monument Valley. a movie was made out there.
>>
>> Didn't that kill John Wayne?
>
> A larger number than typical of the people in that movie died of
> various forms of cancer. The dirt was even broughgt back to the studio
> to film some scenes.
>
> The Atomic Energy folks told the studio it was harmless.
It is useful to note, for those who are unaware, that the issues
in Monument valley were caused by mining operations for Uranium,
not because it was a test site.
And while there may have been some adverse health effects on the actors, it has
certainly affected the Navajo who live there.
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415400 is a reply to message #415384] |
Thu, 21 July 2022 13:41 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:
>> What hasn't been solved is the generation problem. Most H2 is "grey",
>> made from methane and emitting vast amounts of carbon, or "blue" which
>> purports to capture the carbon but is BS. The amount of "green" H2
>> created by solar cells and hydrolysis is tiny, and I see no evidence
>> that we have any way to ship it to where you might want to use it.
>
> You haven't even bothered to look for the evidence.
>
> https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-pipelines
Perhaps I'm missing something, but since there is almost no "green"
hydrogen, building pipelines to transport something that doesn't exist
seems like a poor investment. Sure, we could build a hundred thousand
miles of pipelines, but is that a better investment than electric
transmission lines and skip the two-way conversion? I don't see any
reason to assume so.
> Not to mention all the work being done at Airbus.
Same thing -- if there were a lot of "green" hydrogen, they
could probably adapt some kinds of planes to use it. But
since there isn't ...
Look, H2 is a way to store electricity, but not a particularly
efficient one, and one that has unique safety problems due to the ease
with which it can leak and explode, and the way it attacks metal
pipes. Maybe there are applications where it makes more sense than
other sorts of storage, and I'm not opposed to experimental work. But
it's like fusion that it has rabid advocates who dismiss its real
problems and it is chronically almost but not quite ready for prime time.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415403 is a reply to message #415400] |
Thu, 21 July 2022 13:53 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
> According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:
>>> What hasn't been solved is the generation problem. Most H2 is "grey",
>>> made from methane and emitting vast amounts of carbon, or "blue" which
>>> purports to capture the carbon but is BS. The amount of "green" H2
>>> created by solar cells and hydrolysis is tiny, and I see no evidence
>>> that we have any way to ship it to where you might want to use it.
>>
>> You haven't even bothered to look for the evidence.
>>
>> https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-pipelines
>
> Perhaps I'm missing something, but since there is almost no "green"
> hydrogen, building pipelines to transport something that doesn't exist
> seems like a poor investment. Sure, we could build a hundred thousand
> miles of pipelines, but is that a better investment than electric
> transmission lines and skip the two-way conversion? I don't see any
> reason to assume so.
For the short term, while the transition to green H2 is in process,
there will be a time during which grey or blue H2 will be generated
and transported. Particularly for the Air transportation sector.
>
>> Not to mention all the work being done at Airbus.
>
> Same thing -- if there were a lot of "green" hydrogen, they
> could probably adapt some kinds of planes to use it. But
> since there isn't ...
If you reform CH4 into H2, you can sequestor the CO
which is produced. This makes it "blue" h2. Grey is the
same but without sequestration - although note that the output
is carbon monoxide, not CO2. (Black is derived from coal).
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hy drogen/
The long term goal should be green, saving CH4 for use as chemical
and fertilizer feedstocks.
>
> Look, H2 is a way to store electricity, but not a particularly
> efficient one, and one that has unique safety problems due to the ease
> with which it can leak and explode, and the way it attacks metal
> pipes. Maybe there are applications where it makes more sense than
> other sorts of storage, and I'm not opposed to experimental work. But
> it's like fusion that it has rabid advocates who dismiss its real
> problems and it is chronically almost but not quite ready for prime time.
While I have no dog in the fight, there is a great deal of interest
by large international corporations in H2, specifically to reduce the
emissions from large transport aircraft (as those will be the last to
electrify).
The embrittlement and small molecule size aren't insolvable problems;
I've even seen references to storing H2 in metal lattices (something
that likely was causing the spurious over-unity results by the so-called cold
fusion true believers).
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415407 is a reply to message #415403] |
Thu, 21 July 2022 14:49 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> If you reform CH4 into H2, you can sequestor the CO
> which is produced. This makes it "blue" h2. Grey is the
> same but without sequestration - although note that the output
> is carbon monoxide, not CO2. (Black is derived from coal).
I looked around and couldn't find an actual means to store any
reasonable quantity of CO.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415411 is a reply to message #415409] |
Thu, 21 July 2022 16:13 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> If you reform CH4 into H2, you can sequestor the CO
>>> which is produced. This makes it "blue" h2. Grey is the
>>> same but without sequestration - although note that the output
>>> is carbon monoxide, not CO2. (Black is derived from coal).
>>
>> I looked around and couldn't find an actual means to store any
>> reasonable quantity of CO.
>
> One can catalyze the CO into CO2 for sequestration.
Great. Now the CO is more stable CO2 which isn't going anywhere but
back into the atmosphere. I've heard of injecting CO2 into wells, maybe
a little bit will combine with the rocks but I think the bulk of it is
not going to stay underground.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415417 is a reply to message #415411] |
Thu, 21 July 2022 17:46 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>> If you reform CH4 into H2, you can sequestor the CO
>>>> which is produced. This makes it "blue" h2. Grey is the
>>>> same but without sequestration - although note that the output
>>>> is carbon monoxide, not CO2. (Black is derived from coal).
>>>
>>> I looked around and couldn't find an actual means to store any
>>> reasonable quantity of CO.
>>
>> One can catalyze the CO into CO2 for sequestration.
>
> Great. Now the CO is more stable CO2 which isn't going anywhere but
> back into the atmosphere. I've heard of injecting CO2 into wells, maybe
> a little bit will combine with the rocks but I think the bulk of it is
> not going to stay underground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage#Geo logical_storage
There are other uses for the captured CO2, such as carbonization,
shielding gas (for welding), chemical feedstocks, etc.
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415420 is a reply to message #415409] |
Thu, 21 July 2022 20:06 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> If you reform CH4 into H2, you can sequestor the CO
>>> which is produced. This makes it "blue" h2. Grey is the
>>> same but without sequestration - although note that the output
>>> is carbon monoxide, not CO2. (Black is derived from coal).
>>
>> I looked around and couldn't find an actual means to store any
>> reasonable quantity of CO.
>
> One can catalyze the CO into CO2 for sequestration.
Which, unfortunately doesn't help, since sequestration of either CO or CO2 is a crock.
A little basic chemistry tells us that you end up with more CO or CO2
than the CH2 you started with, same number of molecues but heavier.
Where are you going to put it all? For every cubic foot of methane you
extract, you'll have to find a place to put at least a cubic foot of
CO or CO2, which means building an infrastructure to bury gas as big
as the one we have to extract it. Not going to happen.
If it's not obvious, the whole sequestration thing is a cynical play
by the fossil fuel industry to try and distract us from the fact that
we're going to have to be pumping and using a whole lot less oil and
gas if we don't want to cook the planet.
Vaclav Smil has written extensively about this. See this paper of his
https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/energy_at_cross roads.060516.pdf
or the cites in this JP Morgan paper, starting on page 11:
https://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/JPM2020.pd f
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415424 is a reply to message #415420] |
Fri, 22 July 2022 00:57 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 00:06:12 -0000 (UTC)
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> Which, unfortunately doesn't help, since sequestration of either CO or
> CO2 is a crock.
Yes it is.
> A little basic chemistry tells us that you end up with more CO or CO2
> than the CH2 you started with, same number of molecues but heavier.
If you pull the CH2 out of the ground/ocean then that carbon was
already sequestered. What this process does is sequester *oxygen* which
seems counterproductive to me.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415431 is a reply to message #415417] |
Fri, 22 July 2022 07:02 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>
>>>> > If you reform CH4 into H2, you can sequestor the CO
>>>> > which is produced. This makes it "blue" h2. Grey is the
>>>> > same but without sequestration - although note that the output
>>>> > is carbon monoxide, not CO2. (Black is derived from coal).
>>>>
>>>> I looked around and couldn't find an actual means to store any
>>>> reasonable quantity of CO.
>>>
>>> One can catalyze the CO into CO2 for sequestration.
>>
>> Great. Now the CO is more stable CO2 which isn't going anywhere but
>> back into the atmosphere. I've heard of injecting CO2 into wells, maybe
>> a little bit will combine with the rocks but I think the bulk of it is
>> not going to stay underground.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage#Geo logical_storage
>
> There are other uses for the captured CO2, such as carbonization,
> shielding gas (for welding), chemical feedstocks, etc.
"In the process of absorption the coal releases previously absorbed
methane"
Then the methane makes more CO2.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415442 is a reply to message #415431] |
Fri, 22 July 2022 14:48 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> If you reform CH4 into H2, you can sequestor the CO
>>>> >> which is produced. This makes it "blue" h2. Grey is the
>>>> >> same but without sequestration - although note that the output
>>>> >> is carbon monoxide, not CO2. (Black is derived from coal).
>>>> >
>>>> >I looked around and couldn't find an actual means to store any
>>>> >reasonable quantity of CO.
>>>>
>>>> One can catalyze the CO into CO2 for sequestration.
>>>
>>> Great. Now the CO is more stable CO2 which isn't going anywhere but
>>> back into the atmosphere. I've heard of injecting CO2 into wells, maybe
>>> a little bit will combine with the rocks but I think the bulk of it is
>>> not going to stay underground.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage#Geo logical_storage
>>
>> There are other uses for the captured CO2, such as carbonization,
>> shielding gas (for welding), chemical feedstocks, etc.
>
>
> "In the process of absorption the coal releases previously absorbed
> methane"
>
> Then the methane makes more CO2.
>
When I was referring the process of "carbonization", I was referring
to beverages, not coal.
Interesting discussion of capture technologies.
https://netl.doe.gov/node/11893
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415443 is a reply to message #415442] |
Fri, 22 July 2022 17:13 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:
> When I was referring the process of "carbonization", I was referring
> to beverages, not coal.
>
> Interesting discussion of capture technologies.
Well, OK, but
The amount of CO2 used by beverages is a trivial fraction of the amount
emitted by power generation, and
Unless you have an extremel unusual metabolism, it all ends up back in
the atmosphere pretty quickly.
(I have a vision of a conveyor belt with endless cases of Coca-Cola
disappearing through the entrance to Yucca Mountain.)
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415444 is a reply to message #415443] |
Fri, 22 July 2022 18:33 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
> According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:
>> When I was referring the process of "carbonization", I was referring
>> to beverages, not coal.
>>
>> Interesting discussion of capture technologies.
>
> Well, OK, but
>
> The amount of CO2 used by beverages is a trivial fraction of the amount
> emitted by power generation, and
Well, to be fair, CO is a feedstock for acetic acid (my finger typed asic) production,
for polycarbonate plastics, and for methanol. There's probably little need to
catalyze CO into CO2.
Plastics would seem a convenient form for long term sequestration.
https://netl.doe.gov/node/10179
>
> Unless you have an extremel unusual metabolism, it all ends up back in
> the atmosphere pretty quickly.
Via transpiration, expiration or via solid waste? As CO2 or as some
chemical byproduct due to enzymatic activity in the gut?
>
> (I have a vision of a conveyor belt with endless cases of Coca-Cola
> disappearing through the entrance to Yucca Mountain.)
Sounds like a plan. Unfortunately, Coca-Cola is rather corrosive,
one would need special materials other than the paper thin Al cans;
and why waste the suger, cans of sparkling water would be sufficient.
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415447 is a reply to message #415424] |
Fri, 22 July 2022 20:53 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Radey Shouman
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 00:06:12 -0000 (UTC)
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> Which, unfortunately doesn't help, since sequestration of either CO or
>> CO2 is a crock.
>
> Yes it is.
>
>> A little basic chemistry tells us that you end up with more CO or CO2
>> than the CH2 you started with, same number of molecues but heavier.
>
> If you pull the CH2 out of the ground/ocean then that carbon was
> already sequestered. What this process does is sequester *oxygen* which
> seems counterproductive to me.
CH2 is acetylene (ethyne). Is that really what was intended?
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415448 is a reply to message #415444] |
Fri, 22 July 2022 21:39 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:
> Well, to be fair, CO is a feedstock for acetic acid (my finger typed asic) production,
> for polycarbonate plastics, and for methanol. There's probably little need to
> catalyze CO into CO2.
>
> Plastics would seem a convenient form for long term sequestration.
I'd be interested in seeing how big the plausible market for them and what
the energy budget is. I see that turning methanol+CO into acetic acid is
pretty efficient, but to get methanol you either need to ferment corn,
which has well known issues, or synthesize it from CO+H2, except that
using up H2 rather negates the whole point of this exercise.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415449 is a reply to message #415447] |
Fri, 22 July 2022 21:40 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
According to Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net>:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 00:06:12 -0000 (UTC)
>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Which, unfortunately doesn't help, since sequestration of either CO or
>>> CO2 is a crock.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>>
>>> A little basic chemistry tells us that you end up with more CO or CO2
>>> than the CH2 you started with, same number of molecues but heavier.
>>
>> If you pull the CH2 out of the ground/ocean then that carbon was
>> already sequestered. What this process does is sequester *oxygen* which
>> seems counterproductive to me.
>
> CH2 is acetylene (ethyne). Is that really what was intended?
I can't type. Of course I meant methane, CH4
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415458 is a reply to message #415444] |
Sat, 23 July 2022 14:45 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 22:33:07 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
[snip]
> Sounds like a plan. Unfortunately, Coca-Cola is rather corrosive,
> one would need special materials other than the paper thin Al cans;
> and why waste the suger, cans of sparkling water would be sufficient.
Some of my shipmates on a US Navy destroyer used CocaCola and Navy
kool-aid to clean deck plates down in the 1200 psi firerooms.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415510 is a reply to message #415176] |
Mon, 25 July 2022 04:51 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Vir Campestris
On 18/07/2022 22:25, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>> The other side - there's a solar farm down the road. It stops producing
>> every night, along with every other one on the continent. Where it's hot
>> enough to need aircon* the solar is a good match. Not anywhere else.
>
> It doesn't _need_ to be a good match. Regardless of air conditioning
> or not, it still reduces the use of other forms of fuel.
>
Oh, but it does - until someone comes up with an efficient grid scale
storage system.
Conventional power plants don't like being stopped and started.
Right now AIUI the most efficient fossil plants are combined cycle gas
turbines. They run what's basically a jet engine linked to a generator.
The exhaust is hot, so they also run a steam turbine system using the
waste heat. Turn them on in the evening and the boiler for the steam
plant is cold, so does nothing for a while until it's heated up. At
bedtime you turn it off, and the boiler stops producing steam - but it's
still hot, and all that heat is wasted. There are also all the problems
of thermal cycling, and that applies to everything except hydro. Over
here in the UK all the best pumped hydro sites are being used - except
the ones in nature reserves...
Andy
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415511 is a reply to message #415510] |
Mon, 25 July 2022 05:18 |
|
|
Originally posted by: maus
On 2022-07-25, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 22:25, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>
> Conventional power plants don't like being stopped and started.
>
> Right now AIUI the most efficient fossil plants are combined cycle gas
> turbines. They run what's basically a jet engine linked to a generator.
> The exhaust is hot, so they also run a steam turbine system using the
> waste heat. Turn them on in the evening and the boiler for the steam
> plant is cold, so does nothing for a while until it's heated up. At
> bedtime you turn it off, and the boiler stops producing steam - but it's
> still hot, and all that heat is wasted. There are also all the problems
> of thermal cycling, and that applies to everything except hydro. Over
> here in the UK all the best pumped hydro sites are being used - except
> the ones in nature reserves...
>
> Andy
I notice that here as well, the nearest pumped hydro site (in a nature
reserve) is not being used. You can tell by turning on a radio as you
pass under the power lines.
--
greymausg@mail.com
"Are you sure that you can live on your investments after retirement?
If not, send us all your money."
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415513 is a reply to message #415510] |
Mon, 25 July 2022 05:26 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 09:51:42 +0100
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 22:25, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> The other side - there's a solar farm down the road. It stops producing
>>> every night, along with every other one on the continent. Where it's
>>> hot enough to need aircon* the solar is a good match. Not anywhere
>>> else.
>>
>> It doesn't _need_ to be a good match. Regardless of air conditioning
>> or not, it still reduces the use of other forms of fuel.
>>
>
> Oh, but it does - until someone comes up with an efficient grid scale
> storage system.
Even when someone comes up with one (or more which looks like it may
have happened - big flow batteries are getting sold) it will take a *long*
time to build the kind of capacity required to handle a five day cloudy,
windless spell over the whole of Northern Europe (which happens at least
once most winters).
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415514 is a reply to message #415511] |
Mon, 25 July 2022 05:36 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 25 Jul 2022 09:18:53 GMT
maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
> I notice that here as well, the nearest pumped hydro site (in a nature
> reserve) is not being used. You can tell by turning on a radio as you
> pass under the power lines.
If that is true then they're published operational statistics are a
lie - which I rather doubt. Normal power lines don't affect radios, nor
should those ones.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415515 is a reply to message #415514] |
Mon, 25 July 2022 06:15 |
|
|
Originally posted by: maus
On 2022-07-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2022 09:18:53 GMT
> maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
>
>> I notice that here as well, the nearest pumped hydro site (in a nature
>> reserve) is not being used. You can tell by turning on a radio as you
>> pass under the power lines.
>
> If that is true then they're published operational statistics are a
> lie - which I rather doubt. Normal power lines don't affect radios, nor
> should those ones.
>
These ones did. What, we are being told a lie by officials. Shock,
Horror!
--
greymausg@mail.com
"Are you sure that you can live on your investments after retirement?
If not, send us all your money."
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415522 is a reply to message #415512] |
Mon, 25 July 2022 10:21 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 21/07/2022 20:03, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> However, the CO molecule being smaller, it doesn't have the same
>> reflective effect on long-wave IR in the atmosphere as CO2.
>
> I don't think I like the idea of releasing large quantities of CO into
> the atmosphere. It is poisonous after all...
Neither do I. There are plenty of alternatives, starting with reducing
demand (via energy efficiency and simply using less energy day to day via
more efficient housing stock design, higher housing density and better
public transportation).
The past century of 2.8% annual growth in energy production and use
is not sustainable over the long run, and the sooner that growth is
curtailed, the better off we'll all be in the long run.
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415954 is a reply to message #415357] |
Thu, 04 August 2022 18:55 |
|
|
Originally posted by: David Lesher
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
> Really? I know that Toyota, Honda, and Hyndai putatively have H2 cars
> for sale in California but good luck finding one, or paying for it if
> you can find one. The only real vehicles I know of are trials of
> trucks and trains and maybe a few commercial fleets.
I was at a mini-mart+H2 in SJC several years ago when a H2car
pulled up to refuel. Had an interesting conversation..
--
A host is a host from coast to coast...............wb8foz@panix.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
|
|
|
|
| Re: gas power, The Y2K problem - again [message #415955 is a reply to message #415954] |
Thu, 04 August 2022 19:19 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> writes:
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>
>
>> Really? I know that Toyota, Honda, and Hyndai putatively have H2 cars
>> for sale in California but good luck finding one, or paying for it if
>> you can find one. The only real vehicles I know of are trials of
>> trucks and trains and maybe a few commercial fleets.
>
> I was at a mini-mart+H2 in SJC several years ago when a H2car
> pulled up to refuel. Had an interesting conversation..
>
First St. & Brokaw Rd? Closest station to the airport.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
